Corruption and Rationales for Regulating Campaign Finance Laws dating from 1907 and through the 1990s attest to the significant concerns of voters and legislators about the power of money to influence elections and subsequent government policies and activities. Also, The nature of what constitutes corruption has been addressed in a number of Supreme Court decisions since Buckley v. Valeo (1976). http://forum.lwv.org/member-resources/article/money-politics-corruption-and-rationales-regulating-campaign-finance)

Hard, Soft, and Dark Money Early political scandals involved money used directly for bribery or buying votes. Modern day scandals involve the appearances of corruption depending where gifts and campaign money came from. The U.S. Supreme Court has made a number of controversial decisions expanding the amounts of money in politics by characterizing political donations and expenditures to be exercises of freedom of speech. Among other results, those decisions have created a large and growing category of election related donations and contributions called “dark money.” (http://forum.lwv.org/member-resources/article/hard-soft-and-dark-money )

Independent Expenditures In theory, independent expenditures are not contributions to a candidate and, therefore, cannot constitute a quid pro quo exchange, the only form of corruption that the U. S. Supreme Court recognizes in the political sphere

Evidence of Spending Impacts on Legislative Outcomes What reforms in current campaign spending are justified? This brief review focuses on 3 types of evidence about whether campaign contributions have negative effects on politics: 1) public opinion surveys, 2) recent experience of participants in the political process, and 3) scholarly research in the political science literature. The emphasis is on research available since the year 2000. (http://forum.lwv.org/member-resources/article/evidence-spendings-impacts-electoral-and-legislative-outcomes)

The purpose of this restudy of this topic is to address the possible lack of member understanding and agreement as to whether financing a political campaign is protected speech under the First Amendment. Results may update the League’s position on campaign finance .

Through this current study and consensus process, the League's position on Campaign Finance position may be updated to consider:

(1) the rights of individuals and organizations, under the First Amendment, to express their political views through independent expenditures and the finance of election campaign activities; and

(2) how those rights, if any, should be protected and reconciled with the interests set out in the current position.